Look Up to See Why Most Contrails Are Really Chemtrails 8

No Engine Combustion = No Water Vapor = No Contrails = No Persistent Contrails = Chemtrails

No Contrails-aOnce again, the hypocrisy and desperate misrepresentations from FAA, NOAA, NASA and official alphabet agencies is glaring.

This past week saw meteorologists in Florida predicting a repeated pattern of warm, moist air and afternoon thunderstorms created by an Atlantic sea-breeze traveling west across the peninsula.

However, from daybreak to past 1 PM in Alachua County, Gainesville and U. Florida, the skies were clear and gradually transitioned from partly cloudy to overcast by around 2 PM.

During this period, Flight Radar24 reported over 100 commercial flights transitioning Alachua County within 30 deg above the horizon for viewing by observers on the ground.Flight Radar 24 logo

Despite the humid conditions and forecast for afternoon rain, aircraft were witnessed and photographed with no contrails or persistent contrails visible overhead for 7 hours (7 AM to 2 PM) after which the rain clouds formed to produce 100% overcast conditions.

Observations like this are made day after day with relative humidity (RH) above 30,000 ft. ranging between 20% to, less frequently, 50% RH.

On 6/16/2014, and despite the forecast for humid conditions at ground level to 15,000 feet where rain clouds are formed, Jacksonville reported RH below 30% at flight levels from 30 to 40,000 feet.

CFM56_Jet EngineThese simple observations coupled with data from weather stations confirm the efficiency of the high-bypass turbofan engine at nearly abolishing most normal contrail formations – revealing chemtrails as the official demon.

The high-bypass turbofan is a virtual propeller-driven engine that only requires 20% combustion (water vapor) to produce all necessary thrust.  The engine will rarely produce a visible contrail above 30,000 feet even with forecasts of high thunderstorm activity in the affected region.

Theoretically, this low-combustion and low water vapor engine (Series CFM64) is capable of producing a persistent contrail but only in the most extreme conditions of near “saturated” relative humidity approaching 100%.  But when you examine all the global weathersonde data available at the U. Wyoming back to the beginning of 2014, you may find no reports of near saturated RH above above 30,000 ft.  Zero!.

It’s very important to know that the near inability of the high bypass turbofan engine to produce a normal contrail dramatically reduces the probability that this engine could ever produce a full-blown persistent contrail.

This simple procedure is easily reproducible by amateur observers on the ground to demonstrate that chemical aerosols are being sprayed to mimic what the FAA and NASA disinfo squads would have the American people believe are normal water-vapor, persistent contrails.

Your awareness that aircraft have been secretly spraying toxic aerosols into your breathable atmosphere since the mid-1990’s should cause you to take immediate action to notify your elected representatives to take action to stop this damaging pollution..

You can start at the City and County level. Take advantage of the Sheriff’s department “iWATCH” program where crimes can be reported. See how we do it in Alachua County (click here)

 

Mythology of Sudden On/Off Jet Trail as “Normal”

Chemtrails Over Dry Lake California_01

How many on/off trails do you see over this dry desert?

Chemtrails on and offA few novice observers have been swayed by agents of contrail disinformation to believe the atmosphere at flight levels above 30,000 ft. can contain perturbed parcels of high relative humidity (RH) within a column of air dominated by low RH.

These “agents” will attempt to convince you that a contrail will abruptly start and stop when an aircraft flies through these “imaginary” perturbations of mixed atmosphere.

1) Perturbations of mixed atmosphere DO exist, but almost never at flight levels above 30,000 ft.  If the pilot encounters turbulance of vertical mixing, he/she will fly to a higher altitude to avoid the bumpy ride.

2)  “In the atmosphere, vertical mixing is sometimes discernible as a form of atmospheric turbulence.” (source) –  This is why jet aircraft are routed at altitudes above 30,000 ft. where turbulence or vertical mixing is least likely. Clear skies and absence of towering cumulus are positive for the absence of vertical mixing.  Discussions of vertical mixing are usually confined to weather events below 18,000 feet where surface temperatures warm the dense atmosphere and associated, volatile water vapor.  Vertical mixing of a rogue parcel will cause it to seek equilibrium with the dominant environment of colder, denser atmosphere. This action makes it impossible for a parcel of cold, dry air to exist for very long immediately adjacent to a column of warmer, moister air.

3) Verical mixing (perturbation) of atmospheric parcels above 30,000 ft. will have little effect on the visibility of contrails since the relalative humidity in each case will be approximately the same and well below the necessary high saturation of RH for visible contrail formation. Even in a theoretical case, the boundaries between parcels are sufficiently diffused where any affected contrail would exhibit a more gradual and feathered opacity over hundreds of feet – not a sudden and instantaneous stop and start with uniform density within only 5 feet.

It’s therefore, irrational to accept that sudden on-off trails are always a result of instantaneous changes in RH – especially when the skies are free from towering cumulus and exhibit a clear blue background.

So, in every case where the trail suddenly goes on and off is your evidence of a man-made mechanical switch in the chemical sprayer as opposed to the myth of plausible deniability presented by the “agents”.

Your Eyes Are a Powerful Scientific Tool

The morphology (shape) of the on-off trail adds more evidence to conclude chemical aerosols have been sprayed.

eye and telescopeNormal water vapor trails always exhibit a homogenous appearance resembling “steam”. Water and water vapor are simple H2O with no additional compounds to confuse the appearance. A chemical aerosol can be differentiated from water vapor by the presence of compounds with variable molecular weights detectable by normal observation with the human eye. The “chemistry” in chemtrails can frequently be observed separating into different layers and densities – a behavior completely beyond the ability of water vapor and resultant ice crystals (normal contrails) to exhibit.

Taken together, the sudden on-off trail plus the additional observation of chemical compounds separation (clumping, extrusions) is the slam-dunk for chemtrail identification.

Chemtrails on and off-exhibits

 

Since 80% of the air providing thrust bypasses direct combustion, the engine exhaust is not capable of producing the water vapor required to form a contrail.

Originally Posted at EXECUTIVE REASONING

Jet Engines From Zero to Ultrahigh bypass

The main products of hydrocarbon fuel combustion in a jet engine are carbon dioxide and water vapor.

In older designs of Ramjet and “low-bypass” jet engines, contrails were readily formed at altitudes above 26,000 feet when water vapor (produced by fuel combustion) raised the relative humidity past the saturation point of the atmosphere outside the aircraft.

Water vapor, blown out the engine exhaust would form a visible contrail of ice crystals as it cooled at a distance of approximately one and one-half wing-spans behind the engine. Tiny particulates of sulfur in the jet exhaust would allow the super-cooled water to crystallize into the familiar jet contrail formation that almost always dissipated within several seconds behind the aircraft.

How a High-Bypass Jet Works

The efficiency of high bypass jet engine design is a radical departure from the older low-bypass engines.

Why Modern High Bypass Jet engines almost never produce contrails:

The term “high bypass” refers to the high ratio of thrust produced by air that is not subjected directly to hydrocarbon fuel combustion. Since 80% of the air providing thrust bypasses direct combustion it is not capable of producing the water vapor required to form a contrail.

At high altitudes this water vapor emerges into a cold environment, and the local increase in water vapor can raise the relative humidity of the air past saturation point. The vapor then condenses into tiny water droplets which freeze if the temperature is low enough. These millions of tiny water droplets and/or ice crystals form the contrails. The time taken for the vapor to cool enough to condense accounts for the contrail forming some way behind the aircraft’s engines. At high altitudes, supercooled water vapor requires a trigger to encourage deposition or condensation. The exhaust particles in the aircraft’s exhaust act as this trigger, causing the trapped vapor to rapidly condense. Exhaust contrails rarely occur below 8,000 m (26,000 ft), only if the temperature there is below −40 °C (−40 °F), and if the relative humidity is over 60%. (Wiki)

________________

High Bypass jet engine design used in almost all modern aircraft are incapable of producing contrails

CFM56_Jet Engine

The CFM56 first ran in 1974[1] and, despite initial export restrictions, is now one of the most common turbofan aircraft engines in the world, with more than 20,000 having been built[2] in four major variants. It is most widely used on the Boeing 737 airliner and, under military designation F108, replaced the Pratt & Whitney JT3D engines on many KC-135 Stratotankers in the 1980s, creating the KC-135R variant of this aircraft. It is also the only engine (CFM56-5C) used to power the Airbus A340-200 and 300 series. The engine (CFM56-5A and 5B) is also fitted to Airbus A320 series aircraft. (Wiki)

Notes:

Contrails Less Likely in High Bypass Turbofan Engine 21

Cogeneration is a term that describes the thermodynamically efficient use of fuel that re-uses the heat produced by combustion instead of releasing it directly into the environment as “waste heat”.  WIKI

In a High Bypass Turbofan (HBT) , heat from the combustion phase is not discarded into the environment as waste heat but is put to use a second time to heat the air traveling through the bypass phase.

The HBT is known as a flow-cycle engine as opposed to a simple, no-bypass  “jet” engine.  The ingenious design employs a cogeneration process where “waste heat” from the combustion chamber is used a second time to heat the air from the bypass phase in order to provide 80% of total thrust.  This design greatly reduces the potential for contrail formation where 80% of the thrust is developed without adding water vapor to engine exhaust. Furthermore, any water vapor from the combustion phase that could contribute to contrail formation is mixed with the non-combusted bypass thrust, thereby causing the water vapor exiting the combustion stage to be negligible as it is subsumed by the larger volume of ambient bypass air mixing at the point of engine exhaust.

Jet turbofan engine  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjiUUJdPGX0

EPA: Aircraft Contrail Fact Sheet

Aircraft engines emit water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), small amounts of nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulfur gases, and soot and metal particles formed by the high-temperature combustion of jet fuel during flight. Of these emittants, only water vapor is necessary for contrail formation.” 

The generic High Bypass turbofan design uses only 15 to 20% of air intake for the combustion phase with 80% of thrust developed in the bypass phase with no opportunity to add additional water vapor for contrail formation.  Furthermore, the mixing of combustion thrust with bypass thrust at high exit temperatures, significantly neutralizes or dilutes whatever water vapor is contained in the 20% combustion phase.  These two conditions significantly lower the probability of visible contrail formation in the High bypass turbofan.

THE PROBLEM:  We can find no convincing explanation as to why the sky can be completely free of contrails for an entire day while measured relative humidity at flight level (30-40k ft.) is no different than the previous day when unusual appearing, persistent contrails are inexplicably seen filling the sky with often, bizarre patterns from horizon to horizon.

This article explores the rarely discussed reasons why the high-bypass turbofan design will only form visible contrails under elevated conditions of relative humidity compared to older, low-bypass and no-bypass jet engines.

High Bypass jet engine design used in almost all commercial and military transport aircraft requires significantly high relative humidity at flight level in order to generate a normal, water vapor contrail.

Jet Engines From Zero to Ultrahigh bypass

The main products of hydrocarbon fuel combustion in a jet engine are carbon dioxide and water vapor.

In older designs of Ramjet and “low-bypass” jet engines, contrails were readily formed at altitudes above 26,000 feet when water vapor (produced by fuel combustion) raised the relative humidity past the saturation point of the atmosphere outside the aircraft.

Water vapor, blown out the engine exhaust would form a visible contrail of ice crystals as it cooled at a distance of approximately one and one-half wing-spans behind the engine. Tiny particulates of sulfur in the jet exhaust would allow the super-cooled water to crystallize into the familiar jet contrail formation that almost always dissipated within several seconds behind the aircraft.

How a High-Bypass Jet Works

The efficiency of high bypass jet engine design is a radical departure from the older low-bypass engines.

Why Modern High Bypass Jet engines almost never produce contrails:

The term “high bypass” refers to the high ratio of thrust produced by air that is not subjected directly to hydrocarbon fuel combustion.  Since 80% of the air providing thrust bypasses direct combustion it is not capable of producing the water vapor required to form a contrail.

At high altitudes this water vapor emerges into a cold environment, and the local increase in water vapor can raise the relative humidity of the air past saturation point. The vapor then condenses into tiny water droplets which freeze if the temperature is low enough. These millions of tiny water droplets and/or ice crystals form the contrails. The time taken for the vapor to cool enough to condense accounts for the contrail forming some way behind the aircraft’s engines. At high altitudes, supercooled water vapor requires a trigger to encourage deposition or condensation. The exhaust particles in the aircraft’s exhaust act as this trigger, causing the trapped vapor to rapidly condense. Exhaust contrails rarely occur below 8,000 m (26,000 ft), only if the temperature there is below −40 °C (−40 °F), and if the relative humidity is over 60%. (Wiki)

CFM56_Jet Engine

The CFM56 first ran in 1974[1] and, despite initial export restrictions, is now one of the most common turbofan aircraft engines in the world, with more than 20,000 having been built[2] in four major variants. It is most widely used on the Boeing 737 airliner and, under military designation F108, replaced the Pratt & Whitney JT3D engines on many KC-135 Stratotankers in the 1980s, creating the KC-135R variant of this aircraft. It is also the only engine (CFM56-5C) used to power the Airbus A340-200 and 300 series. The engine (CFM56-5A and 5B) is also fitted to Airbus A320 series aircraft.  (Wiki)

Notes:

NASA Reports Protective Ozone Layer is Recovering Reply

If you trust the content of this report, NASA claims the ozone hole is generally on the mend from measurements made in the stratosphere at 20 miles above the earth.  An altitude of twenty miles translates to about 100,000 feet above the ground where commercial and transport military aircraft – powered by high-bypass turbofan engines – can not fly.  Limited to a maximum service ceiling of about 42,000 feet, these aircraft can only release emissions in troposphere below 42,000 feet as opposed to the stratosphere – at 100,000 feet in the case of the ozone layer.

The public deserves a “trustworthy” full spectrum lab analysis of the troposphere below 40,000 feet to report the full extent of chemical pollution deployed from aircraft engines and “contrails” in the public’s breathable air supply.

NASA Science News Header

Mystery in the Ozone Layer

Sept. 5, 2014:  High above Earth, more than 20 miles above sea level, a diaphanous layer of ozone surrounds our planet, absorbing energetic UV rays from the sun.  It is, essentially, sunscreen for planet Earth. Without the ozone layer, we would be bathed in dangerous radiation on a daily basis, with side effects ranging from cataracts to cancer.

Mystery in the Ozone Layer

Sept. 5, 2014:  High above Earth, more than 20 miles above sea level, a diaphanous layer of ozone surrounds our planet, absorbing energetic UV rays from the sun.  It is, essentially, sunscreen for planet Earth. Without the ozone layer, we would be bathed in dangerous radiation on a daily basis, with side effects ranging from cataracts to cancer.

People were understandably alarmed, then, in the 1980s when scientists noticed that manmade chemicals in the atmosphere were destroying this layer. Governments quickly enacted an international treaty, called the Montreal Protocol, to ban ozone-destroying gases such as CFCs then found in aerosol cans and air conditioners.  On September 16, 1987, the first 24 nations signed the treaty; 173 more have signed on in the years since.

Fast forward 27 years.  Ozone-depleting chemicals have declined and the ozone hole appears to be on the mend. The United Nations has called the Montreal Protocol “the most successful treaty in UN history.” Yet, despite Montreal’s success, something is not … quite … right.  *** Continue

Example of aircraft emissions in the

Troposphere between 30 and 40,000 feet.

Application of Contrail Science Reveals Covert Aerosol Geoengineering 5

carnicom institute header new

“If “contrails” by appearance transform into “clouds”, it can be concluded that the material of composition is not water vapor.”

Persistent spreading contrail aerosol cirrus cloud

Aerosol Cirrus Clouds

CONTRAIL PHYSICS
Clifford E Carnicom
September 17 2000

Cliff CarnicomA preliminary model has been developed to estimate the length of time that is required for a contrail to dissipate. It is assumed within this discussion that the contrail is composed of water vapor (per historical definition). The model developed agrees extremely well with the historical behavior and observation of contrails. The model is not intended to encompass all variables that may be in effect, but it does model reasonably well the expected behavior of water at flight altitudes. Any errors will be corrected if and as they are brought to my attention. It will be noted that this model is not a function of relative humidity, as no basis from thermodynamics has yet been established for it’s inclusion. Any model based upon the premise of “mixing” as the primary mechanism for dissipation requires quantification to receive consideration. Cloud formation and the introduction of aerosol particles to assist in their formation is an entirely different discussion which is to be examined separately. The conclusions that result from the study of this model are several:

1. Contrails composed of water vapor routinely dissipate, as the physics and chemistry of this model will demonstrate. As a separate and distinct set of events, clouds may form if temperature, relative humidity, and aerosol conditions are favorable to their development. If “contrails” by appearance transform into “clouds”, it can be concluded that the material of composition is not water vapor.

2. The conditions under consideration show that the ice crystals within a contrail can warm to the melting point and subsequently melt with the heat provided by solar radiation.

3. As demonstrated both by historical observation and this model, the time expected for contrail dissipation is relatively short, e.g., 2 minutes or less. This assumes the contrail is composed essentially of water vapor, per the classic definition (condensed trail).

4. The rate of contrail dissipation is highly dependent upon the size of the ice crystal particles and the amount of solar radiation. Dependence upon relative humidity is not evident. ‘Cloud’ formation from aircraft, should it occur, is dependent primarily upon the temperature, the relative humidity, and the type and size of aerosol particles (nuclei) that are introduced.

The basic form of the contrail dissipation model, based upon the chemistry, mathematics and physics of thermodynamics is as follows:

time for dissipation = (mass of water crystal * (Q + heat of fusion)) / power where Q is the amount of heat required to increase the temperature of a substance (ice).

or

t(sec) = (m (kg) * Ht(kj/kg)) / P(watts)

where t is the time required for contrail dissipation (transformation), in seconds, m is the mass of the ice crystal in kilograms, Ht is the heat of transformation of ice in kilojoules per kilogram, and P is the power applied to the system in watts.

Calculating the internal energy, or enthalpy, of water vapor often involves several phase changes, as water varies between solid, liquid and vapor under varying conditions of temperature and pressure. In the case of a contrail composed of water vapor, the heat of transformation will consist of two phases. The first is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of the ice crystal at a sub-zero temperature to 0 deg. C., which will be designated as Q in the present case. The second segment of heat required will be that which melts the ice crystal to a liquid form. The primary processes involved in contrail formation therefore appear to involve:

1. The emission of water vapor from the aircraft.
2. The freezing of the water vapor at sub-zero temperatures into ice crystals.
3. The warming of the ice crystals to the melting point through solar radiation.
4. The melting of the ice crystal with solar radiation to where the water vapor once again no longer is visible. This returns the water to the state from which it was emitted from the engine.

Let us now quantify the components of this model with elements that are typical or representative of the conditions of contrail formation:

Mass:

Assume that we have a cubed particle size (nucleated ice crystal) of dimension d on a side, measured in microns(designate as u). Given also that the density of ice is .917gm/cm3, the mass of the particle is:

mass=(d(u) * (1E-6m/u))^3 * (1E6cm3/m3) * (.917gm/cm3) * (1E-3kg/cm3)

or

mass = (d^3 * 9.17E-16 cm3 gm kg m3) / ( m3 cm3 gm)

Q + Heat of Fusion:

Q is equal to the amount of heat required to increase the temperature of the ice crystal from the ambient temperature to 0 deg. C. The specific heat of ice is given as 4.21 kJ/(kg C) at 0 deg. C. The specific heat varies only slightly with respect to temperature and pressure, and this value will therefore be used. J refers to joules of energy.

The heat of fusion of ice is 335kJ/kg. It requires this amount of energy to melt ice.

Therefore, the amount of heat required to transform the ice crystal is:

dQ + heat of fusion = 4.21 kJ/(kg C) * dT + 355kJ/kg

where dQ is the amount of heat entering the ice crystal, the heat of fusion is the amount of heat required to melt the ice crystal, and dT is the temperature change from the ambient air to 0 deg. in Celsius.

The model now becomes:

t(sec) = (d^3 * (9.17E-16)cm^3 gm kg m^3 * ((((4.21kJ/kg)*dT)/(kg C))
+ 355kj/kg)) / P * (m^3 cm^3 gm)

Power (P):

The energy of solar radiation is given in terms of watts/ square meter. Representative values measured range approximaely from 200 to 700 watts/m^3. To arrive at the power applied to the ice crystal, we will take the surface area of the crystal exposed perpendicularly to the sunlight, and apply the solar radiation to it. The solar radiation will be applied on a continuous basis to the surface area until melting is complete.

Power absorbed = d^2 * (watts/m^2) * (1E-6m/u)^2

and since 1 watt = 1 joule/sec

Power absorbed = d^2 * (J/(m^2 s) * (1E-12) m^2/u^2

The model now becomes:

t(sec) = (d(u)^3 * (9.17E-16) cm3 gm kg m^3 * ((4.21kJ/kg * dT kJ/kg
C) + (335kj/kg))) / (d(u)^2 * (J/(m^2 s) * (1E-12) m^2 / u^2)

Simplifying:

t(sec) = ((d(u) * (9.17E-13) * (4.21dT + 335) J cm^3 gm kg m^3 s
m^2) / (Watts * 1E-12 J m^2 m^3 cm^3 gm kg)

or t(sec) = (d(u) * (9.17E-13) * (4.21dT + 335)) sec / (Watts *
1E-12)

or t(sec) = (d(u) * .917 * (-4.21T + 335)) / Watts/m2

where d is measured in microns, T is the air temperature where the contrail forms, measured in Celsius, and solar radiation is in watts per square meter.

Representative cases and the application of this model will now be considered. Research indicates that the expected size of particles emitted from aircraft ranges between 30 and 200 microns (Goethe MB – Ground Based Passive Remote Sensing of Ice Clouds with Scattered Solar Radiation in the Near Infrared – Max Planck Inst Meteorol). The temperature of the air at flight altitudes commonly approaches -50 deg. C. Solar radiation commonly ranges between 400 and 700 watts per square meter.

In the tables presented, d is the dimension of the ice crystal along one side of the cube, T is the temperature of the ambient air where the contrail forms (.e.g, 35000ft. MSL), and P is the solar radiation in Watts/sq. m. t is the length of time that it requires for the contrail, or ice crystal to dissipate (i.e., transform from ice to water vapor).

 d(microns) T(deg. C.) P(watts/sq. m) t(sec)

  • 1 -50 600 1
  • 10 -50 600 8
  • 30 -50 600 25
  • 50 -50 600 42
  • 100 -50 600 83
  • 1 -40 400 1
  • 10 -40 400 12
  • 30 -40 400 35
  • 50 -40 400 58
  • 100 -40 400 115
  • 1 -30 700 1
  • 10 -30 700 6
  • 30 -30 700 18
  • 50 -30 700 33
  • 100 -30 700 60

This model covers the expected size range of any particles expected to be emitted by aircraft; most airborne particles range between 0-100 microns. It is of interest that the particle sizes considered in this model are generally considered to be too large to serve as cloud condensation nuclei; the average expected size of cloud condensation nuclei is extremely small, and on the order of .1 to .2 microns. A 10 micron particle is considered extremely large with respect to cloud condensation nuclei. This size distinction, when coupled with the results of the model above, further indicate the need to consider cloud formation as a separate and distinct physical process from that of contrail dissipation. That analysis would necessarily consider the significant role that aerosol particles, deliberately or otherwise introduced, would have on the cloud nucleation and formation process.

As can be seen, the results of this model agree extremely well with the observed properties of contrails over their historical existence. This work is based upon the physical processes, chemistry and mathematics of thermodynamics with respect to water and the various phase states. Consideration has also been given to the phenomenon of sublimation, and it has been found to be not applicable due to the extremely low atmospheric pressure requirements for sublimation to occur (P<.006atm). The greatest variation within this model is seen to relate to particle size. It is seen that the contrails composed of the smaller particles dissipate within 30 seconds or less, and that the contrails composed of even relatively large particles are expected to dissipate within a couple of minutes at most.

Conclusion:

If the dissipation of an observed contrail does not conform to the model above, and the corresponding physics and chemistry and math of same, then the logical conclusion that can be drawn is that the material of emission is not likely to be water vapor. As mentioned earlier, the physics of cloud formation are an entirely separate process, and are highly dependent upon temperature, relative humidity, aerosol type and the size of aerosol particles that are introduced. Any alterations in the formation of cloud processes as they have been repeatedly observed and recorded must necessarily consider the impact of these aerosols, identified and unidentified, within the analysis. Prior attention given to microscopic hydrated salts remains a priority in this research.

Clifford E Carnicom
September 16 2000
Authored at Lake Heron, NM

 

Engineered Clouds Dusted With Black Carbon 3

Disturbing Assessment of Covert Global Aerosol Geoengineering: 6/22/2014

Black Carbon emissions

Using the NASA interactive WORLDVIEW service for viewing daily images from the TERRA amd AQUA polar satellites.

This assessment suggests a change in covert, global aerosol deployment.

1) Although geoengineering evidence dominates the artificial cloud-cover, it’s apparent in this one video, that fewer jet trails can be distinguished.  These obse, although these observations will require more time to establish. Instad of jet trails we observe more areas where aerosols appear to be released in the cirrus level as a bolus or “dump”. (aka chem-dump, or chem-bomb)

2) New geoengineering pattern of deploying aerosols that appear dark and dirty in hue/color. (carbon black?).  A noticeable appearance of “angry clouds” was previously observed north of the Azores.  The satellite captured radio frequency  transmission originating from San Miguel island and aimed directly at these dark, roiling group of clouds. (Sau Miguel is.)

In 2009, NOAA and DHS established that aerosols have a powerful effect on tropical cyclones.  Of special concern is the HAMP investigators found that Carbon Black aerosols are an effective method to INCREASE intensity of tropical cyclones .  Presumably, carbon black can be applied to other atmospheric systems with rotational characteritics.  (HAAMP)

Direct Youtube link

Powerful EM Radiation Originating at Sau Miguel Island (AZORES)

5/2/2014 Disturbing satellite images reveal Tesla aerosol Climate modification originating from Sao Miguel in the Azores.

UPDATE: Possible prelude to geoengineered floods over Italy and Bosnia (BBC)

5-2-2014 Teslas Wx Mod Sao Miguel Island Azores-a

The angry clouds in the cone of the electromagnetic wave propagation appear very dark, suggesting black carbon was used as cloud seeding to manufacture intense weather as it moves into western Europe.

In 2009, NOAA and the DHS established that black carbon aerosols arre capable of intensifying the circulation in tropical cyclones. Manufacturing cyclonic activity with Tesla propagation into clouds seeded with metalic black carbon could be an alternative method of weather weaponization and artificial climate change.

The cone of electromagnetic radiation (radio waves) is made “visible” by the aluminum and barium semi-conductive properties of the aerosols. Normal water-vapor clouds would not visibly react to radio waves in this way.

The apparent result of weather modification on 5/2 is a manufactured cyclone on 5/3 as it moves east to strike land mass in the EU north to Scandanavia (source)

Notice how the chemtrails sprayed in the Gulf of Mexico – including those associated with the Pensacola flood – have moved across Florida to supply aerosol seeding for operations at Sau Miguel.

Click on each image below for full resolution

 

5-2-2014 Teslas Wx Mod Sao Miguel Island Azores-b

5/2/2014

5-2-2014 Teslas Wx Mod Sao Miguel Island Azores-cc

5/2/2014

5-3-2014 Tesla Wx Mod Sao Miguel Island Azores-a

5-3-2014

 

 

 

Predicting Chemtrails – Sunspots, Cloud Cover and Relative Humidity Reply

carnicom-Institute Header

PREDICTING THE OPERATIONS:
SUNSPOTS AND HUMIDITY
Sep 3 2002
Edited Oct 08 2002
Edited Nov 08 2002
Edited Oct 29 2003
(Recommend printing in landscape mode)
Clifford E Carnicom

SANTA FE REPORT : INDEX ON 112702 AT 0900 IS 44
Model correlation is statistically significant at 98% level as of 11/08/02


Additional Notes Oct 29 2003:

Please note that this article was authored on Sep 3 2002. The additional factor of vertical column aerosol density, most easily measured by star magnitude visibility, appears also to be significant in the prediction of the onset of the aerosol operations in a particular region.


Research over an extended period of time indicates that there is likely a strong relationship between the appearance of the aerosol operations in a given locale and time and the interaction of the following primary variables:

  • Sunspot activity
  • Relative humidity
  • Change in relative humidity
  • Relative cloud cover

Cliff CarnicomThe inclusion of the solar activity within this current examination may be a significant avenue of research that establishes a series of ties with earlier discussions related to ionospheric, electromagnetic and defense projects, applications of HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) and plasma physics that also appear on this site. Current studies on planetary physics and celestial considerations may demonstrate further relationships to the aerosol operations in the future.

This current work expands upon earlier presentations that have been made in the spring of 2001 related primarily to the relative humidity issue. These papers are available at The Aerosol Reports : United States; A Model Under Development and The Aerosol Report. This earlier work focused upon the consideration of relative humidity values across the nation in conjunction with observed aerosol operations. The result of that earlier work indicated a close link between increased relative humidity levels that were scaled according to local conditions and the likelihood of concurrent aerosol operations. Other researchers and considerable anectodal information have also added to that body of correlations that now exist.

Since that time, increased attention has been given to the drought crisis that has emerged over the last three to four years, and further links from a scientific standpoint have been made to the aerosol operations with these events. Readers may wish to refer to the following paper Drought Inducement as well as an audio interview with Mr. Jeff Rense (June 4, 2002) on this same topic. Readers may also wish to become familiar with the the refuting arguments that I have made against any so-called “global warming mitigation” aerosol theories (e.g., Edward Teller) that have been proffered by certain well-publicized journalists and broadcasters. Analysis indicates that the introduced aerosols will aggravate the so-called “global warming” problem rather than lessen it. My concerns on the drought issue and the potential crisis that is likely to affect food production and water availability now and in the future have only been amplified since those presentations were made. It appears to me that it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the drought to subside and crops to improve as long as the aerosol operations continue unchecked without public outcry and action.

Local atmospheric electricity and magnetometer observations have also been added to the data set as of Sep 21 2002 and Oct 07 2002 respectively. These observations are a part of current research that expands upon that presented within this page, and they will be explained further at a later time.

This paper will again be divided into two sections. The latter half will outline the more technical aspects of the study, whereas the general findings are presented above. *** Continue

Amazing Geoengineering Aerosols Photographed Over Dry Lake, California 8

How can one of the driest places on earth produce an entire sky full of bizarre persistent and spreading contrails that block the sun at a solar power plant?

Photographer, Calvin Jones captured much more than the operation at the IVANPAH Solar Electric Generating System in Dry Lake, CA.

The special 360 deg camera Jones used for this feature provides a dazzling display of the sky in all directions.

Click Here to see the original Photosphere

Chemtrails Over Dry Lake California_01

Chemtrails Over Dry Lake California_02

Chemtrails Over Dry Lake California_03

Chemtrails Over Dry Lake California_04

DISINFO: BUSTED Pilot Forgets To Turn Off Chemtrails While Landing 6

Video Gone “VIRAL” For Wrong Reason

Original Video Title:  “BUSTED Pilot Forgets To Turn Off CHEMTRAILS While Landing”

With opportunities to make comments disabled,  this video is a possible attempt to discredit the Geoengineering activist community.

CIA 6in Chemtrails Logo copy

The trails behind this aircraft are created by conditions of near saturated relative humidity (RH) as the plane comes in for a landing.

Although no data is presented to support high RH, the video reveals very humid conditions on the runway.

The various wing vortices create changes to selectively lower the atmospheric pressure behind the wing surface with the result that the air  becomes super-saturated (above 100% RH).  The consequences are visible and persistent “trails” of water vapor….not “chemtrails”.

Source: Condensation from decrease in pressure

Even though the conclusion of “chemtrails” is misrepresented, this video serves as an example that near saturated RH is required in order that a persistent contrail will form wherever the aircraft is flying.

Just as in this video, conditions of near saturated RH are also required in order to form a persistent contrail when the aircraft is cruising at 36,000 feet.

But decades of historic atmospheric data confirms relative humidity almost NEVER climbs to near 100% saturation between at altitudes between 30 to 40 thousand feet where almost all commercial jets are routed to fly.

Conclusion:  The hypothesis of Aerosol Geoengineering (aka Chemtrails) is supported when current and historic data show relative humidity above 30,000 feet almost NEVER climbs to near saturation of 100%.*

“If the atmosphere is near saturation, the contrail may exist for some time. Conversely, if the atmosphere is dry, the contrail will dissipate quickly.”

* USAF Contrail Facts, Page 13 (PDF)

* U. Wyoming Upper Atmospheric Data

TV20 Weatherman Forecasts Clear Skies but Geoengineering Aerosols Cloud Gainesville 2

WCJB TV20 News Header

WCJB Bill Quinlan Mug WCJB WeatherOn Nov 9, 2012, WCJB Weatherman, BIll Quinlan was too quick to brag about his University of Florida “Gator Growl” forecast for clear skies.

Quinlan’s forecast for dry conditions was hacked when a sky full of geoengineering aerosols produced unexplained cloudiness.

The event was documented by Hatrick Penry who used the NASA Appleman contrail forecast chart to explain why the clouds could not be natural water vapor and concluded they were artificial clouds produced by geoengineering aerosols (aka chemtrails).

Using NASA Appleman Chart to Determine Chemtrails vs. Contrails 10

NASA Contrail Science Header


Original upload “TrutherD2”

Near the close of WW2 jets were used. It was, of course, very important for these jets to avoid detection. NASA and the USAF began to research methods of predicting the occurrence of contrails. In 1953, a scientist named H. Appleman published a chart that can be used to determine when a jet airplane would or would not produce a contrail.

Using these reports and observations of temperature, pressure and relative humidity, the USAF found that the forecasts using the Appleman method were correct about 60 to 80 percent of the time. Looking more closely at the data, they found that when no contrails were forecast, the forecast was correct 98 percent of the time! However, when contrails were forecast to occur, the forecast was correct only 25 to 35 percent of the time, and often failed to predict the occurrence of contrails.

Due to the inaccuracy in predicting YES contrails with the appleman chart, we should focus solely on the 98% accurate prediction of NO contrails.

Used in combination with triangulation and atmospheric sounding data, it becomes trivial to predict whether one should be seeing contrails over their city or whether the trails seen are in fact chemtrails.

Disinfo Debunkers: “This chart was made in 1953! The science is 60 years old!”

Do you think the laws of physics have changed since then? The chart was reviewed in 1992, here. You will find that the review was done to better predict the occurrence of YES contrails and the 98% accurate prediction of NO contrails was never found to be inaccurate.

Additionally, the improved efficiency of jet engines with the development of High Bypass Turbofan has significantly reduced the engine combustion required to form water vapor – the essential ingredient in the formation of normal contrails.  (See More on this topic)

Disinfo Debunkers: “Atmospheric sounding is unreliable.”

Readings are taken twice daily, sometimes hourly. The closer you are to the station and the time of reading the more accurate your results. If you are a pilot, you can use live atmospheric readings in-flight.

Disinfo Debunkers:  “You can’t know the conditions up there. There are tiny pockets of vastly dissimilar air, accounting for trails appearing to start and stop, etc.”

This does not make good sense, especially when the atmospheric conditions are completely un-supportive of contrail formation to begin with. I challenge you to support your claims.

Disinfo Debunkers:  “Newer engines could make it more likely for there to be contrails.”

Yes they may, just as some newer engines might be less likely to form contrails. Such variables are mentioned in the 1992 review of appleman chart contrail formation science. In my view, the change will be negligible (perhaps a few thousand feet and a degree or two celcius) and the appleman chart will be enough to show glaring differences in what we should be seeing and what we are seeing.

If you intend to prove or debunk chemtrails being created by “planes”, be sure that you use legitimate NASA USAF contrail formation science such as the appleman chart!

If you catch someone denying chemtrails and they aren’t familiar with and actively promoting this chart (or updated contrail-formation science as shown), it would be wise to suspect their motives.

“Max T. Persistence” does not necessarily mean indefinite persistence. From what I’ve seen in documentaries by pilots & investigators and online in journalist tests, 30s-2 mins is normal. (Must dig up links) Taking into account what we know about contrail and cloud science, including exhaust particulate, humidity, pressure and temperature, it would seem obvious that the conditions for indefinite persistence with a given engine are quite specific.

Further, remember that the prediction of YES contrails by the appleman chart is only correct 25 – 35% of the time. So predicting when a contrail will persist with any accuracy is impossible.

The USAF reviewed the Appleman Chart in 1992 as they wanted to improve prediction of YES contrails, and the method ETACFCST was developed:

USAF SAC Contrail Formation Study 1992 (PDF)

Now you know an easy method to discover chemtrails for yourself!

Aerospace Engineer Confirms “Chemtrails” as Covert Aerosol Geoeongineering 2

120369At an international symposium held in Ghent, Belgium May 28-30, 2010, scientists asserted that “manipulation of climate through modification of Cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory.” It is “fully operational” with a solid sixty-year history. Though “hostile” environmental modification was banned by UN Convention in 1978, its “friendly” use today is being hailed as the new savior to climate change and to water and food shortages. The military-industrial complex stands poised to capitalize on controlling the world’s weather.

“In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects.” ~World Meteorological Organization, 2007

charles_hatfield-1915-san-diego[1]

Rainmaker Charles Hatfield, in 1915, destroyed much of San Diego.

The only conspiracy surrounding geoengineering is that most governments and industry refuse to publicly admit what anyone with eyes can see. Peer-reviewed research is available to anyone willing and able to maneuver the labyrinth of scientific journals. So, while there is some disclosure on the topic, full public explanation is lacking. A brief list of confirmed cloud seeding events is produced at bottom, starting in 1915.

Going under a variety of names – atmospheric geoengineering, weather modification, solar radiation management, chemical buffering, cloud seeding, weather force multiplication – toxic aerial spraying is popularly known as chemtrails. However, this is merely one technique employed to modify weather. The practice of environmental modification is vast and well funded.

Hosted by the Belfort Group, which has been working for the last seven years to raise public awareness of toxic aerial spraying, the Symposium included chemtrail awareness groups from Greece, Germany, Holland, France and the U.S. Belfort published five videos covering only May 29,[1] when filmmaker Michael Murphy (Environmental Deception and What in the world are they spraying)[2] and aerospace engineer Dr. Coen Vermeeren [3] gave the most dramatic presentations.

Dr Vermeeren, of the Delft University of Technology, presented [4] a 300-page scientific report entitled, “CASE ORANGE: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies.” [5]

Case Orange notes it was prepared for the Belfort Group by a team of scientists but presented anonymously. It was sent to embassies, news organizations and interested groups around the world “to force public debate.”

The report spends some time on HAARP, the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, [6] which is a military endeavor focused on ionospheric, electromagnetic, and global electrostatic field manipulation, and on other exotic weapon systems that manipulate the environment. While related, they go beyond this discussion of chemtrails.

In the interest of brevity, the health and environmental implications of cloud seeding is not discussed in any depth herein. Case Orange does go into it, as did most of the speakers at the Belfort Symposium. Cursory research reveals a debate among researchers as to chemtrail toxicity, but whether that’s a 50-50 or 99-1 argument is unknown.

Contrails Are Chemtrails

Case Orange rejects use of the term ‘chemtrails’ because it is associated with amateur conspiracy theorists. The only credible document it could find that uses it is the Space Preservation Act of 2001 introduced by U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). [7] H.R. 2977 sought to ban the use of exotic weapon systems that would damage climate, weather, tectonic and biological systems. “Chemtrails” are specifically listed. Though later removed, no version of the bill ever became law.

Instead, the writers prefer the term ‘persistent contrails’ to describe the phenomenon since all contrails are chemtrails. ‘Persistent contrails’ distinguishes those that contain weather-altering additives from those that represent normal aircraft exhaust that dissipates after a few seconds or minutes.

Case Orange also rejects misanthropic intentions behind persistent contrails. It shows that geoengineering is fully operational, but rejects it is used to sicken people on the assumptions that 1) public health agencies have the public interest at heart; and 2) the economy is consumer driven. The authors indicate no awareness of numerous reports of collusion between the pharmaceutical industry and government health agencies. This year, a significant conflict-of-interest report appeared in the prestigious British Medical Journal, which further heightened suspicions that the H1N1 flu and its vaccines were a scam.[8] Nor do the authors consider that sick people will spur economic growth in a capitalist (for profit) health system.

chemt

Dr. Vermeeren gave his own introductory remarks and conclusions, but spent the bulk of the hour presenting information from Case Orange. He frankly admitted the existence of persistent contrails.

“We also know that chemtrails do exist because we do spraying; for crops, for example, and we know that they have been spraying for military purposes. So, chemtrails is nothing new. We know about it.”

“Weather manipulation through contrail formation … is in place and fully operational.”

Case Orange cites publicly available material that shows geoengineering has been ongoing for “at least 60 years.” Used as a weapon of war in Hamburg by the UK during World War II, it was also used in the Vietnam Conflict by the US. Controversy over its use, revealed by investigative reporter Jack Anderson, spurred Senate hearings in 1972. During those hearings, military officials denied the use of cloud seeding technology. Later, a private letter from Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird admitting that his testimony was false surfaced. He, again unbelievably, claimed he didn’t know what was happening. [9]

Environmental modification (EnMod) weaponry was finally banned by treaty in 1978. The UN Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques forced the end of such programs, overtly anyway.[10] (Case Orange authors seem unaware of this international ban, as it is one of their recommendations.)

However, with widespread reporting of rising global temperatures, increasing population, and degradation of water supplies, renewed interest in EnMod is now becoming broadly supported. (See, e.g., Top economists recommend climate engineering, 4 Sep 2009 [11] and similarly, Top science body calls for geoengineering ‘plan B’, 1 Sep 2009.[12])

stormfy

The crew in Operation Stormfury in 1963. Note the special belly on the Douglas DC6-B for cloud seeding purposes. (From Case Orange)

Building a case for old technology finding a new market, Case Orange discusses several U.S. patents. For example, authors describe a 1975 patent, “Powder Contrail Generation,” [13] for the invention of a:

“specific contrail generation apparatus for producing a powder contrail having maximum radiation scattering ability for a given weight [of] material. The seeding material … consists of 85% metallic particles and 15% colloidal Silica and Silica gel in order to produce a stable contrail that has a residence period of 1 up to 2 weeks.”

In 2009, researchers published “Modification of Cirrus clouds to reduce global warming,” which proposed two methods of delivery for this same proportion of metallics to silica and the same staying power of one to two weeks.[14]

Case Orange also reveals a 1991 patent held by Hughes Aircraft Company [15] that:

“contains 18 claims to reduce global warming through stratospheric seeding with aluminum oxide… thorium oxide … and refractory Welsbach material ….”

The report notes that “the proposed scenario by the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] in 2001 is identical to the claims” in Hughes Aircraft’s 1991 patent. Hughes was acquired by Raytheon, a private defense contractor, in 1997, “the same company that acquired E-systems and the HAARP contract.”

Case Orange presents evidence that Raytheon stands to control all weather, which the authors find repugnant given that it is a private corporation. The authors recommend suing private corporations instead of governments. But subcontracting is quite common for governments and agencies, especially the US military. The distinction between large, powerful corporations and governments is a fine line obscure to common folk. And, the effect is the same whether governments are spraying us with nano-sized metals, chemicals or biologicals, or whether corporations do. The authors’ protective posture toward governments is nonsensical.

Case Orange suggests that geoengineering found new life in the global warming scare. Old patents are being dusted off and private interests stand to make substantial sums now that Cap and Trade has been exposed as ineffective in reducing greenhouse gases. (Although, lawmakers are still considering it since substantial sums can be made from the scheme, to wit: Al Gore reportedly achieved billionaire status from it.)

Since 2007, billionaire Bill Gates has spent at least $4.5 million on geoengineering research. [16] Since reducing emissions is not popular with industry, ‘Plan B’ – geoengineering – is being touted as the answer to climate change and water shortage. A longer description of Plan B is: Add more pollution to the sky and water to offset industrial pollution, without reducing industrial pollution.

Human rights and environmental watchdog, ETC Group, describes the momentum [17]:

“The roll-out of geoengineering as Plan B is being skillfully executed: prominent high-level panels sponsored by prestigious groups, a spate of peer-reviewed articles this January in science journals, and a line-up of panicked politicians in northern countries, nodding nervously in agreement as scientists testify about the ‘need to research Plan B.’”

ETC reports that Gates’ top geoengineering advisor unveiled a plan to grow solar radiation management research “one-hundred-fold, from $10 million to $1 billion over ten years.”

Indeed, several watchdog groups recently ramped up calls to address clean water shortage. “At the end of July 2010, the United Nations General Assembly will vote on an important resolution, initiated by the Bolivian government, which would make clean water and sanitation a human right,” reports Food and Water Watch.[18]

Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025

usaf 2025

Case Orange ties a 1996 report by top military personnel in the U.S., “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025” [19] to evidentiary details (like governmental spraying schedules, chemical orders, correct nomenclature used in airline operating manuals, and calls for geoengineering by economists) to support its notion of “heavy involvement of governments at top level in climate control projects.”

Owning the Weather in 2025 provides a specific timeline for the use of EnMod technologies in cooperation with the Weather Modification Association (WMA), a business-government group promoting the beneficial uses of environmental modification [20]:

2000 Introduce ionic mirrors, with a sharp increase from 2008;

2000-2025 Use chemicals for atmospheric seeding by civilian (as well as military) aviation;

2004 Create smart clouds thru nanotechnology, with exponential increase after 2010;

2005 Introduce ‘carbon black dust’.

Though Case Orange decries the paucity of research into EnMod, in 2009 WMA published its position statement on the safety of seeding clouds with silver-iodide, citing three dozen research papers from 1970 through 2006. [21] In 2007, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) published a statement that included “Guidelines for the Planning of Weather Modification Activities.” Acknowledging that the modern technology of weather modification began in the 1940s, it is still “an emerging technology” today. [22] WMO indicated disappointment that research is being abandoned for operations.

Case Orange contains no reference to the WMA position statement citing all that research, although it cites the group. Nor does it mention the World Meteorological Organization, an agency of the United Nations, which has a link to its Weather Modification portal on its Index page.

At the end of the section, The bare necessity of geoengineering through cloud generation for survival of the planet (5.2.7), Case Orange states:

“[O]ur investigation team comes to the conclusion that climate control programs, controlled by the military but approved by governments, are silently implemented in order to avoid the worst case scenarios they obviously do not want. The two basic instruments are temperature control through generation of artificial clouds and manipulation of the ionosphere through ionosphere heaters.

“Both remain basically military combat systems with the option to go into the offensive if deemed necessary. However since several ionosphere heaters are installed on various places around the globe one can assume that there is wide cooperation between governments in order to reach the climate targets by 2025: controlling the weather and thus the planet.”

The report published the following images provided by a former meteorologist at the Ontario Weather Service, showing spraying schemes for Europe. For December 6, 2008 in the first image.

owning-the-weather-all

In the last 3 images – “The spraying schemes seem to be organized in a logical pattern so that the whole of Europe is covered in a 3-day period,” the authors write. The following images cover January 3-5, 2010:

Case Orange agrees that climate change needs to be addressed. Regarding Climate-Gate, the authors suggest that the University of East Anglia deliberately manipulated the climate data to gradually prepare the global population for its future on a hotter planet.

They also cite research that supports the notion that climate change is real. During the three-day grounding of most aircraft after 9/11, scientists noticed an increase in temperature of 1.1 °C (2 °F). [23] This is an astounding increase in such a short time frame. The incidence of cloud seeding reports by the public increases exponentially after this.

The 1996 military piece, Owning the Weather in 2025, gives climate change skeptics “an insight in what to expect in the 21st century:

‘Current demographic, economic and environmental trends will create global stresses that provide the impetus necessary for many countries or groups to turn weather modfication ability into capability. In the United States weather modification will likely become part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels.’”

Recommendations

“Persistent contrails,” however, “have a devastating impact on eco-systems on this planet and quality of life in general.” Case Orange joins the call of Bill Gates’ geoengineering advisor and the WMO for new research measuring the impact on human health and the environment from EnMod programs.

Case Orange also recommends an immediate and full disclosure of current EnMod activities to the public; and that all civil aviation laws be abided.

Of note, in response to policy interest in geoengineering as a means to control climate change and enhance water supplies, on May 14, 2010, the science subcommittee of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity proposed a geoengineering moratorium. [24] This proposed ban on “friendly” EnMod programs will be heard at the Tenth Conference of Parties to UN Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya, Japan this October.

Case Orange reports that China and Russia openly admit to cloud-seeding, while the U.S. denies such activities. The U.S. does permit open air testing of chemical and biological weapons but not under the law the authors cited, which they paraphrased:

The secretary of defense may conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological agents on civilian populations.

Public law of the United States, Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977.

Codified as 50 USC 1520, under Chapter 32 Chemical and Biological Warfare Program, Public Law 85-79 was repealed in 1997 by Public Law 105-85. In its place, 15 USC 1520a provides restrictions (such as informed consent). 50 USC 1512, however, allows open air testing of chemicals and biologicals and allows presidential override of notices and of public health considerations for national security reasons. [25] Case Orange authors are thus correct in asserting that such programs are legal in the U.S.

Epilogue

Having heard enough conspiracy theories to last me a lifetime, I hesitated researching the subject of chemtrails, and maintained skepticism. That all changed in March when I personally observed two jets seeding clouds, along with about 30 other people in the parking lot at lunchtime. Someone took a picture from her cell phone:

9 chemtrails-davie-fl-3-30-2010-x325

The trails lasted for hours, and looked distinctly different from other clouds. Since then, I’ve been watching the skies and can now tell when they’ve been seeded. We often have a white haze instead of a deep blue sky, even when persistent contrails aren’t visible.

A few days ago, someone sent me a link to the Belfort Symposium videos. Four hours into it, I became riveted when Dr. Vermeeren began his presentation of the Case Orange report. That’s when I decided to seriously look into the subject. As informative as Case Orange is for the newcomer, any serious research into the subject reveals that what all those “conspiracy theorists” suggest is true: they are spraying the skies, and they’re not telling us.

Discovering that the World Meteorological Organization has a tab on its website called Weather Modification shocked me. Reading their disappointment that governments are going ahead with operations instead of doing more research confirmed all of it for me. And that was published in 2007!

So, while we’re not being told, the information is publicly available to any armchair researcher.

Being so late to the game on all this accords me sympathy for others. Military leaders have for centuries recognized that it rains after a heavy battle, but harnessing that power in a way that doesn’t cause a deluge like in San Diego in 1915 has been a task. I came upon other stories like that in my research – misdirected hurricanes, farm wars, massive flooding and mudslides. It’s no wonder there are so many books on the subject. It’s no wonder this turned into a 3,000-word essay.

Chemtrails are no hoax; I spent time going to as many original sources as I could find. The record is replete with mainstream news accounts of the early days of the modern EnMod program. If its birth can be marked by Britain’s successful use of chaff in 1943 to jam enemy radar, the program is 67 years old. That’s quite a history to keep under the radar of most people. That reflects most poorly on mainstream news sources, who are supposed to expose government shenanigans.

A Brief History of Cloud Seeding

Cloud seeding, as a US military research project, began as early as the 1830s, according to Colby College professor, James R. Fleming. [26] Verifiably successful rainmaking attempts did not occur until 1915.

1915 To end a prolonged drought, San Diego hired reputed rainmaker Charles Hatfield, who claimed that the evaporation of his secret chemical brew atop wooden towers could attract clouds. San Diego was rewarded with a 17-day deluge that totaled 28 inches. The deadly downpour washed out more than 100 bridges, made roads impassable over a huge area, destroyed communications lines, and left thousands homeless. [27]

10 charle-hatfields-rain-washes-out-dam-1915

Charles Hatfield’s rain washes out dam 1915, San Diego. Dozens died.

1943 “The first operational use of chaff (aluminium strips which are precisely cut to a quarter of the radar’s wavelength) took place in July 1943, when Hamburg was subjected to a devastating bombing raid. The radar screens were cluttered with reflections from the chaff and the air defence was, in effect, completely blinded.” [28]

1946 General Electric’s Vincent Schaefer dropped six pounds of dry ice into a cold cloud over Greylock Peak in the Berkshires, causing an “explosive” growth of three miles in the cloud. [29]

11 romy-ny-dry-ice-seeding-1946

New York dry ice seeding 1946 (Life Magazine)

1947 Australian meteorologists successfully repeated the process. [30]

1949 Project Cirrus: Nobel Laureate Irving Langmuir and General Electric researcher Vincent Schaefer fed ten ounces of silver iodide into a blowtorch apparatus and brought down 320 billion gallons of rain across half of New Mexico from a desert near Albuquerque. [31]

1950 Harvard meteorologist Wallace Howell seeded New York City skies with dry ice and silver iodide smoke, filling the city’s reservoirs to near capacity. [32]

1952 The UK’s Operation Cumulus resulted in 250 times the normal amount of rainfall, killing dozens and destroying landscapes. [33]

1962-1983 Operation Stormfury, a hurricane modification program, had some success in reducing winds by up to 30%. [34]

1966-1972 Project Intermediary Compatriot (later called Pop Eye) successfully seeded clouds in Laos. The technique became part of military actions in Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos from 1967 to 1972. Initially revealed by Jack Anderson in the Washington Post, 18 Mar 1971. [35]

1986 The Soviet air force diverted Chernobyl fallout from reaching Moscow by seeding clouds. Belarus, instead, was hit. [36]

12 china-weather-rocket-x-impactlab

China weather rocket (2008 by ImpactLab)

2008 Chinese government used 1,104 cloud seeding missiles to remove the threat of rain ahead of the Olympic opening ceremony in Beijing. [37]

05_Flatbed_2 - OCTOBER

2009 Moscow Halo. Case Orange cites this as evidence of cloud seeding, but others suspect it is electromagnetic in origin. Russian authorities said it was an optical illusion. [38]

 

________________________________________

This is by no means a comprehensive list; indeed, volumes are dedicated to the subject.

Notes:

[1] Belfort Group videos of International Symposium on Chemtrails, May 29, 2010 proceedings. http://www.ustream.tv/channel/belfort-test

[2] Michael Murphy website: http://truthmediaproductions.blogspot.com/

[3] Dr Coen Vermeeren, Delft University of Technology bio, n.d.

[4] Dr Coen Vermeeren Symposium speech, Afternoon Part 1 video, (starting at about 35 mins..) (29 May 2010) http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/7299427

[5] Anonymous, “CASE ORANGE: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies,” 10 May 2010. PDF without appendices:
http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/case_orange-5-10-2010-belfort-chemtrails.pdf

[6] High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, Fact Sheet, 15 Jun 2007. http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/factSheet.html

[7] Space Preservation Act of 2001, H.R.2977, 107th Congress, 1st Session. Introduced by U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich.

[8] Deborah Cohen and Philip Carter, “Conflicts of Interest: WHO and the pandemic ‘flu conspiracies,’” British Medical Journal 2010;340:c2912, 3 Jun 2010. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/jun03_4/c2912

[9] The Sunshine Project, “The Limits of Inside Pressure: The US Congress Role in ENMOD,” n.d. Accessed July 2010. http://www.sunshine-project.org/enmod/US_Congr.html

[10] United Nations, “Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques,” Resolution 31/72, 10 Dec 1976, effective 1978. Geneva. http://www.un-documents.net/enmod.htm

[11] Copenhagen Consensus Center, “Top economists recommend climate engineering,” 4 Sep 2009. Press release [pdf]
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=%2fFiles%2fFiler%2fPress+Releases+2010%2fCC_PRESS_STATEMENT__4september2010_.pdf

[12] Catherine Brahic, “Top science body calls for geoengineering ‘plan B’, New Scientist 1 Sep 2009.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17716-top-science-body-calls-for-geoengineering-plan-b.html

[13] Donald K. Werle, et al., “Powder contrail generation,” U.S. Patent 3,899,144, 12 Aug 1975. Assignee: U.S. Secretary of the Navy.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=3,899,144.PN.&OS=PN/3,899,144&RS=PN/3,899,144

[14] David L Mitchell and William Finnegan, “Modification of Cirrus clouds to reduce global warming,” Environmental Research Letters Vol. 4 No. 4, 30 Oct 2009. Available by subscription: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/045102

[15] David B. Chang and I-Fu Shih, “Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming,” U.S. Patent 5,003,186, 26 Mar 1991. Assignee: Hughes Aircraft Company.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,003,186.PN.&OS=PN/5,003,186&RS=PN/5,003,186

[16] Eli Kintisch, “Bill Gates Funding Geoengineering Research,” Science Insider, 26 Jan 2010. http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/01/bill-gates-fund.html.

[17] ETC Group, “Top-down Planet Hackers Call for Bottom-up Governance: Geoengineers’ Bid to Establish Voluntary Testing Regime Must Be Opposed,” 11 Feb 2010. http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5073

[18] Food and Water Watch: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/world-water/right/

[19] Col Tamzy J. House, et al. “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025,” Department of Defense U.S. Air Force, 17 Jun 1996. Publicly released August 1996. Reproduced at Federation of American Scientists:
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c15/v3c15-1.htm

[20] Weather Modicaton Association website: http://www.weathermodification.org/

[21] Weather Modification Association, “Position Statement on the Environmental Impact of Using Silver Iodides as a Cloud Seeding Agent,” July 2009.
http://www.weathermodification.org/AGI_toxicity.pdf

[22] World Meteorological Organization, “WMO Statement on Weather Modification,” UN Commission for Atmospheric Sciences Management Group, 26 Sep 2007.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/WM_statement_guidelines_approved.pdf

[23] Donald J. Travis, et al. “Contrails reduce daily temperature range,” Nature 418, 601, 8 Aug 2002. Reproduced in full by University of Washington, Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~rennert/etc/courses/pcc587/ref/Travis-etal2002_Nature.pdf

[24] Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, “In-depth Review of the Work on Biodiversity and Climate Change, Draft Recommendation,” Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Environmental Programme, UNEP/CBD/SBTTA/14/L.9, 15 May 2010. http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-14/in-session/sbstta-14-L-09-en.pdf

[25] United States Code, Title 50, Chapter 32, “Chemical and Biological Warfare Program.” http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/50C32.txt

[26] James Rodger Fleming, “The pathological history of weather and climate modification: Three cycles of promise and hype,” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2006. Available at
http://www.colby.edu/sts/06_fleming_pathological.pdf

[27] Stephen Cole, “Weather on Demand,” American Heritage, 2005. http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2005/2/2005_2_48.shtml

[28] Monsignore Pizzafunghi Bosselese, “The History of Radar,” BBC, 14 Jul 2003. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A591545

[29] Fleming, citing New York Times, 15 Nov 1946, 24.

[30] Squires, P. & Smith, E. J., “The Artificial Stimulation of Precipitation by Means of Dry Ice,” Australian Journal of Scientific Research, Series A: Physical Sciences, vol. 2, p.232, 1949AuSRA…2..232S, 1949. Republished at Harvard University:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1949AuSRA…2..232S/0000244.000.html

Also see: Stephen Cole, “Weather on Demand,” American Heritage, 2005.
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2005/2/2005_2_48.shtml

[31] Life Magazine, “Solution to Water Shortage: Rain makers’ success shows how New York could fill its reservoirs,” p. 113, 20 Feb 1950.
http://books.google.com/books?id=FVMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA113&dq=Irving+Langmuir&as_pt=MAGAZINES&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Irving%20Langmuir&f=false

[32] Life Magazine, “U.S. Water: We can supplement our outgrown sources at a price,” 21 Aug 1950, p. 52.
http://books.google.com/books?id=wUoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=Irving+Langmuir+rainmaker&source=bl&ots=Ehqq8hZNsE&sig=
tkN51NoxqMsKVq6ClZU9Hvej8g0&hl=en&ei=9mhMTO3vG93llQfjpJHGDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[33] John Vidal and Helen Weinstein, “RAF rainmakers ’caused 1952 flood’: Unearthed documents suggest experiment triggered torrent that killed 35 in Devon disaster,” The Guardian, 30 Aug 2001.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/silly/story/0,10821,544259,00.html

Also see: BBC News, “Rain-making link to killer floods,” 30 Aug 2001. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1516880.stm

[34] Jerry E. Smith, “Weather Warfare: The Military’s Plan to Draft Mother Nature,” Adventures Unlimited Press, 2006. pp. 47-54.
http://books.google.com/books?id=G7t260XD8AYC&pg=PA47&dq=stormfury&hl=en&ei=9wJ
OTOfVE4G88gbZ3IGaDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=stormfury&f=false

[35] ibid. pp. 54-60.

[36] Richard Gray, “How we made the Chernobyl rain,” Daily Telegraph, 22 Apr 2007.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549366/How-we-made-the-Chernobyl-rain.html

[37] Ian O’Neill, “The Chinese Weather Manipulation Missile Olympics,” Universe Today, 12 Aug 2008.
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/08/12/the-chinese-weather-manipulation-missile-olympics/

[38] Anonymous, “Moscow Halo,” cell phone video uploaded to YouTube, 7 Oct 2009. reposted at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXF9HSB627U

# # #

Comparative Contrail Analysis Shows Evidence of Covert Geoengineering Aerosols 2

Published on Jul 31, 2012

EVIDENCE for COVERT GEOENGINEERING: In 2010 Aerospace Engineers submitted conclusive evidence for Covert Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering, (aka “Chemtrails”) in a 336 page report called “CASE ORANGE”.

The report was commissioned by THE BELFORT GROUP (UK), who held a “CHEMTRAILS SYMPOSIUM” where the conclusions were presented by Aerospace Engineer, Dr. Coen Vermeeren.

The Term Chemtrails was invented by The Department of Defense as title to a chemistry manual for for Air orce Acedemy pilot training.

 

The Term “Chemtrails” is in the text of 2001 legislation (HR-2977) defined as an “exotic weapon”.    http://tinyurl.com/7d7v57o

Documentary: What In The World Are They Spraying?: http://youtu.be/jf0khstYDLA

Documentary: Why In The World Are They Spraying? (Trailer) http://youtu.be/s3__ssxTvN

 

Analysis of Welsbach Alumina Aerosol Seeding Patent As Major Contributor to Global Warming 3

Welsbach Seeding-Patent-AA

Image from Page 1 of Welsbach Patent (PDF) Click Here

Notice the Welsbach patent specifies deployment of aluminum oxide into the STRATOSPHERE at 70 to 90,000 feet where the majority of military and commercial aircraft cannot even fly.

When aluminum oxide – as artificial contrails and clouds – is sprayed up to 7 miles lower in the troposphere, the result is consistent with climatologist data that confirms the result could warm surface temperatures – thus aggravating global warming.

Welsbach Patent Increse Global Warming

Image from Page 1 of Welsbach Patent (PDF) Click Here

IPCC scientists and NASA agree that Contrails and artificial clouds have significant impact of climate.

“Contrails tend to warm the Earth’s surface, similar to thin high clouds”. (1)

Artificial clouds sprayed by jet aircraft can “change the climate and affect natural resources”. (2)

“The notion that the aerosols are in some way cooling the planet is contradictory to direct observation and the examinations of physics” (3)

Sources:

After 15 years of spraying aluminum oxide in the troposphere, the level of spraying has increased. This suggests the plan to warm the climate is more likely the true motive all along.

This deception evolved from proposals to warm the climate as far back as 1877 – 7 years after the formation of Standard Oil – when Harvard geologist Nathaniel Shaler proposed channeling more of the warm Kuroshio Current through the Bering Strait to raise temperatures in the Polar region by 30 degrees.

The amazing history of “Global Warming” – as a good thing – was popular until  the 1960’s, when (in 1966) NASA organized government agencies into the “National Weather Modification” program that was quickly taken over by the military to develop climate weapons. This could explain why government agencies have adopted a “top secret” deniability about covert geoengineering – aka “chemtrails” as they are sworn to secrecy for the usual “national security” reasons.  (Complete article)

In April, 2013, Weather Modification Inc. listed 37 Cloud Seeding operations in 17 States within the CONUS with a total of 66 such operations in 18 Countries.

In April, 2013, Weather Modification Inc. listed 37 Cloud Seeding operations in 17 States within the CONUS

Texas-Precip-Enhancement-Lg

Public Health Issue

dr-russell_blaylock-mug-CaptionEven without considering “Chemtrails”, the fallout of toxins as the demand for cloud-seeding increases is disturbing.

This relatively provincial level of cloud seeding is evidence that the corporate mentality will inflict public exposure to massive levels of airborne toxins. We would be foolish to expect any less from the perpetrators of covert, and global geoengineering operations.

“My major concern is that there is evidence that they are spraying tons of nanosized aluminum compounds. It has been demonstrated in the scientific and medical literature that nanosized particles are infinitely more reactive and induce intense inflammation in a number of tissues. Of special concern is the effect of these nanoparticles on the brain and spinal cord, as a growing list of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS) are strongly related to exposure to environmental aluminum.” – Neurologist, Russell L. Blaylock, M.D. (Complete Article)

Video Reveals Jets Spraying Chemtrails Painted as Commercial Airliners 8

The aircraft presented in this video appear to be commercial airliners, however there is no evidence that passengers were aboard these jets or that the aircraft were actually part of a commercial fleet.  This leaves open the possibility that these chemtrails aircraft are “imposters” used by the military to lend credence to a massive, covert climate modification program.

In 1990 the Department of Defense published a Chemtrails” manual for pilot training at the USAF Academy..

In the mid-1990’s unmarked military aircraft were observed spraying aerosols from ports located in the wings and around the exhaust of the jet engines.

In recent years, civilian aircraft are increasingly contracted to secretly spray aerosols through ports located near the engines and airframe. This video provides a well documented example of commercial aircraft spraying chemtrails over Gainsville and North Florida involving AIRTRAN airways.

IPCC scientists also admit CO2 from aircraft will grow 3% per year but make no recommendation about using alternative forms of travel.

While not admitting that aircraft are spraying tons of aerosols into the atmosphere these same scientists say that contrails and artificial clouds have a profound effect on the climate and tend to warm global surface temperatures.

Ask yourself:

“If global warming is real, why are these aircraft secretly spraying aerosols that are known by UN/IPCC scientists, to warm the climate?”

Sources and Data: